The world government

My philosophy is informed by scripture, it is too easy to settle on a flawed premise and proceed from there if all you use is yourself.

How do you know that what is in the scriptures are valid? How do you know that it was not written by a type of Rael or Ron hubbard 2 millenium ago? I'm not implying that the scriptures (if you mean the bible) are necessarily unfounded. I just don't take them for granted.

The universe - reality - must be good. It is all we've got. Judging it otherwise is madness. Beyond that, it is what it is, refines our view of it, to making the best of whatever it is. It is, what we have to work with. The trick is in being able to determine what it is. Which is deceptively simple. It Is.

Yet humans modify it, every moment of their lives, in their minds, to be what it isn't, and never was. Humans are fond of saying that they are as much a part of nature as any creature, and that their crazy egos are, too. But this is not so. A human is only natural in as far as a human is able to flow with nature, and not run counter to it. Most modern humans are as far from natural as it is possible to get.

The satanic illuminati reptilians clearly are working behind the shadows to divert the focus of the discussion of the world government here in this thread to something else. I can't understand how you guys are not noticing it.

If there are lizards wandering around, in positions of power, does it really matter? If they have power, then they have - ah - power. Which means humans don't. So there is nothing to be done about it, other than hold candlelight vigils.

Western taoists, aren't. They are, almost in their entirety, new-age imbeciles, mangling taoism to retrofit it to their left-wing dogma. There is no reason actual taoism can not productively co-exist with Western scientific civilization. This is the reason I no longer self-identify as a taoist: the term has been excreted all over by the mob. Like the mob does, to everything it touches. I am, now, a crow, and nothing but.

Western taoists, aren't. They are, almost in their entirety, new-age imbeciles, mangling taoism to retrofit it to their left-wing dogma. There is no reason actual taoism can not productively co-exist with Western scientific civilization. This is the reason I no longer self-identify as a taoist: the term has been excreted all over by the mob. Like the mob does, to everything it touches. I am, now, a crow, and nothing but.

What would be a definition of western taoists? I wonder why new-age ''spirituality'' is so wrong. Is it because it tends to view ideal life as an episode of the care-bear?

It is a self-serving, egotistical, mutation of something very good, into something very bad. A justification for behaving in just about any way at all, while deluding oneself into believing one can do no wrong.

How do you know that what is in the scriptures are valid? How do you know that it was not written by a type of Rael or Ron hubbard 2 millenium ago?

Like I know anything else is valid, a combination of reason, intuition and the spiritual. If you read great poetry, it can give you some insight into the nature of the writer. True scripture therefore is a hint towards its own divinity. It fits with what you think should be (not ideologically), it satisfies the spirit and intuition hearkens towards it. False prophets reveal themselves easily if one is not already deluded. The true religions all seem to share some underlying principles and qualities no matter how superficially different they may seem.

What do you mean by not taking them for granted? What then is your approach to them? Do you believe them to be a collection of the knowledge about the world that mankind has gathered? That would mean believing they are incidental no?

Western Taoism turned into the same religion that all liberal religions turn into, which is liberalism with a religious aesthetic. There is no essential difference between liberal Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, anything. It is just humanism, individuals and feels come first, everything else second. It is empathy turned into pathology, perennial concern without substance. You could call it worship of the Other. I call it Satanism.

How do you know that what is in the scriptures are valid? How do you know that it was not written by a type of Rael or Ron hubbard 2 millenium ago?

Like I know anything else is valid, a combination of reason, intuition and the spiritual. If you read great poetry, it can give you some insight into the nature of the writer. True scripture therefore is a hint towards its own divinity. It fits with what you think should be (not ideologically), it satisfies the spirit and intuition hearkens towards it. False prophets reveal themselves easily if one is not already deluded. The true religions all seem to share some underlying principles and qualities no matter how superficially different they may seem.

What do you mean by not taking them for granted? What then is your approach to them? Do you believe them to be a collection of the knowledge about the world that mankind has gathered? That would mean believing they are incidental no?

Western Taoism turned into the same religion that all liberal religions turn into, which is liberalism with a religious aesthetic. There is no essential difference between liberal Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, anything. It is just humanism, individuals and feels come first, everything else second. It is empathy turned into pathology, perennial concern without substance. You could call it worship of the Other. I call it Satanism.

I asked you about the validity of the scriptures just to know if you thought that the book has value because it's been held as an holy book for millenium or because after you red it, you find something worthy in it. For what I understand, it's more of the latter.

I don't take it for granted especially on an historical level. It was written by and for the jews, especially the old testament so I'm not sure that those historical facts are really objective. I don't take that they would wrote themselves as the bad guys.

in adition, a lot of the stories came from oral traditions and after being written down, there's been quite a few translations from ancient hebrew to modern english so some of the original meaning could have been lost. Plus, the vatican has made a few changes, often for political reasons, over the centuries.

That's been said, there can be a lot of useful thoughts in it if you interpret it the correct way and eliminate some of the nonsenses. I view it in the same light as any other books, in a way that it's not holy per se but knowledge ca be acquired by reading it. For me, it got more value than a the majority of books because most of the books have little to no value at all and the Bible has been made at least in part by sages, one thing that cannot be said by most authors.